Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@sourceware.cygnus.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@sources.redhat.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@sources.redhat.com X-Authentication-Warning: hp2.xraylith.wisc.edu: khan owned process doing -bs Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 15:49:50 -0600 (CST) From: Mumit Khan To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Optimizing away "ReadFile" calls when Make calls stat() In-Reply-To: <4.3.1.2.20010213154412.04990ba0@pop.ma.ultranet.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII On Tue, 13 Feb 2001, Larry Hall (RFK Partners, Inc) wrote: > At 03:25 PM 2/13/2001, DJ Delorie wrote: > > > >Actually, it is. I did some benchmarks using the native Win32 API > >directly, and Linux is way faster. > > > Any chance that you have a pointer to the results of such a test? Just > curious. And I have seen results that show W2k/NTFS_5 to be at least as fast as some of the Unix counterparts, and I trust neither (at least not w/out more information). I also don't trust benchmark numbers of Linux/ext2fs, because of the metadata issue, nor do I trust some of the other Unix and W2k numbers because of other issues. *BSD and Linux folks don't believe each others numbers either. Argh, Just can't win. Skeptical crisis all over again. Regards, Mumit -- Want to unsubscribe from this list? Check out: http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple